Re: (Dismissed) Worldwide Ban on Aggression and Wars Act

Shockwave Mon Apr 06, 2015 11:47 pm

Wirbanskia is Against. This proposal violates a country's sovereign rights.

Shockwave Tue Apr 07, 2015 1:36 am

West Phoenicia wrote:I agree your stepping on a countries sovereign rights.

Since you are not on the Security Council, you cannot post here....

Shockwave Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:37 am

West Phoenicia wrote:Thank u for informing me. As a new player no one has bothered to explain anything. Beg my pardon for this out of order post.

You are certainly welcome, If you have any questions feel free to telegram me or Eurussia.

Apepistan Tue Apr 07, 2015 3:29 pm

The United Kingdoms of Apepistan have the same concerns as with the previous proposal that looked very much like this, and was dismissed. Also, our questions were not answered:
Would this proposal affect conventional wars only? What about fourth generation warfare, unconventional warfare, proxy wars, etc.?

Great Eurussia Tue Apr 07, 2015 6:54 pm

Republic of New Korrea wrote:I am filing again my initial proposal with more detail because of your opinions on the old proposal. Please support this now.
https://worldalliance.forumotion.co.uk/t798-dismissed-world-war-ban-act#28402

Worldwide Ban on Aggression and Wars ACT

1) War is illegal but self defense is legal if another country attacks you. War is illegal if you did not attack the attacking country which means you did not provoke him.
2) Countries that violates war ban must pay fine to WASC and compensation to victim countries to be computed by WASC.
3) Countries that supports other countries that violate the war ban must also pay fine to WASC and compensation to victims countries.
4) There must be embargo and sanctions to countries making wars approved by WASC or made by other countries.
5) Countries that violate the war ban must put their leaders on trial in international court and he will be imprisoned in another country chosen by the courts.

Please support!!!

Eurussia is against Section 5 since it will violate our right to sovereignty. If it will be struck down, our government will support the proposal as we believe that Sections 1 to 4 are acceptable and for the benefit of maintaining peace in the world.

Apepistan Wed Apr 08, 2015 4:40 pm

Republic of New Korrea wrote:
3) Countries that supports other countries that violate the war ban must also pay fine to WASC and compensation to victims countries.

Great Eurussia wrote:Eurussia is against Section 5 since it will violate our right to sovereignty. If it will be struck down, our government will support the proposal as we believe that Sections 1 to 4 are acceptable and for the benefit of maintaining peace in the world.

What about Section 3? Let me give you an example so it'll be easier for me to explain.
The following scenario is just a fictional example!

1. Apepistan, Ebsotz and Lockdownn are all in peace.
2. Apepistan makes a trade agreement with Lockdownn, supplying him with various trade goods, including weapons, and gets other trade goods in return.
3. Lockdownn, after having his economy boosted, declared war on Ebsotz.
4. Lockdowwn is found guilty by the WASC, and also Apepistan, because we "supported" them.

See how this is a fallacy? A third party nation that is neutral to the said conflict can not be held responsible for another country's actions. That is simply nonsense.

Another example, which is pretty much actual: The United Kingdoms of Apepistan and the Holy Empire of Artite are both members of the Roman Alliance. Artite went to war with Korrea, and now Apepistan should be guilty aswell, because we are trading with Artite and we have a good diplomatic relation, even though we even send humanitarian aid, hosted a peace summit, and opened our refugee camps?

Section 3 needs to go aswell, or it needs to specifically explain what it means under "supporting".

Republic of New Korrea wrote:War is illegal if you did not attack the attacking country which means you did not provoke him.

I think this sentence needs to be restructurised, because, as we understand it, it currently means the exact opposite of what this proposal stands for.

Otherwise, we agree with the proposal.

Great Eurussia Thu Apr 09, 2015 10:55 am

Republic of New Korrea wrote:I am filing again my initial proposal with more detail because of your opinions on the old proposal. Please support this now.
https://worldalliance.forumotion.co.uk/t798-dismissed-world-war-ban-act#28402

Worldwide Ban on Aggression and Wars ACT

1) War is illegal but self defense is legal if another country attacks you. War is illegal if you did not attack the attacking country which means you did not provoke him.
2) Countries that violates war ban must pay fine to WASC and compensation to victim countries to be computed by WASC.
3) Countries that supports other countries that violate the war ban must also pay fine to WASC and compensation to victims countries.
4) There must be embargo and sanctions to countries making wars approved by WASC or made by other countries.

Please support!!!

The legislative proposal may now be debate within three (3) days.

Shockwave Thu Apr 09, 2015 10:58 am

As stated above, Lockdownn is Against

Great Eurussia Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:14 am

Apepistan wrote:
Republic of New Korrea wrote:
3) Countries that supports other countries that violate the war ban must also pay fine to WASC and compensation to victims countries.

Great Eurussia wrote:Eurussia is against Section 5 since it will violate our right to sovereignty. If it will be struck down, our government will support the proposal as we believe that Sections 1 to 4 are acceptable and for the benefit of maintaining peace in the world.

What about Section 3? Let me give you an example so it'll be easier for me to explain.
The following scenario is just a fictional example!

1. Apepistan, Ebsotz and Lockdownn are all in peace.
2. Apepistan makes a trade agreement with Lockdownn, supplying him with various trade goods, including weapons, and gets other trade goods in return.
3. Lockdownn, after having his economy boosted, declared war on Ebsotz.
4. Lockdowwn is found guilty by the WASC, and also Apepistan, because we "supported" them.

See how this is a fallacy? A third party nation that is neutral to the said conflict can not be held responsible for another country's actions. That is simply nonsense.

Another example, which is pretty much actual: The United Kingdoms of Apepistan and the Holy Empire of Artite are both members of the Roman Alliance. Artite went to war with Korrea, and now Apepistan should be guilty aswell, because we are trading with Artite and we have a good diplomatic relation, even though we even send humanitarian aid, hosted a peace summit, and opened our refugee camps?

Section 3 needs to go aswell, or it needs to specifically explain what it means under "supporting".

Republic of New Korrea wrote:War is illegal if you did not attack the attacking country which means you did not provoke him.

I think this sentence needs to be restructurised, because, as we understand it, it currently means the exact opposite of what this proposal stands for.

Otherwise, we agree with the proposal.

Eurussia concurs with Apepistan. We wish these concerns to be addressed appropriately.

Kingdom of Scottlands Thu Apr 09, 2015 4:27 pm

The Kingdom of Scottlands is in favor of this.

Muchos Estados Unidos Thu Apr 09, 2015 6:55 pm

I support Apepistan questions.

UnitedStatesOfScouting Thu Apr 09, 2015 9:10 pm

Against

Serenarea Fri Apr 10, 2015 7:04 am

Serenarea does NOT support this proposal

Great Eurussia Sun Apr 12, 2015 11:26 pm

Great Eurussia wrote:
Republic of New Korrea wrote:I am filing again my initial proposal with more detail because of your opinions on the old proposal. Please support this now.
https://worldalliance.forumotion.co.uk/t798-dismissed-world-war-ban-act#28402

Worldwide Ban on Aggression and Wars ACT

1) War is illegal but self defense is legal if another country attacks you. War is illegal if you did not attack the attacking country which means you did not provoke him.
2) Countries that violates war ban must pay fine to WASC and compensation to victim countries to be computed by WASC.
3) Countries that supports other countries that violate the war ban must also pay fine to WASC and compensation to victims countries.
4) There must be embargo and sanctions to countries making wars approved by WASC or made by other countries.

Please support!!!

The legislative proposal may now be debate within three (3) days.

The proposal may now be voted within two (2) days.

Apepistan Sun Apr 12, 2015 11:53 pm

As no changes have been made, and our concerns are still unaddressed... The United Kingdoms of Apepistan are against.

Great Eurussia Tue Apr 14, 2015 7:53 pm

Great Eurussia wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
Republic of New Korrea wrote:I am filing again my initial proposal with more detail because of your opinions on the old proposal. Please support this now.
https://worldalliance.forumotion.co.uk/t798-dismissed-world-war-ban-act#28402

Worldwide Ban on Aggression and Wars ACT

1) War is illegal but self defense is legal if another country attacks you. War is illegal if you did not attack the attacking country which means you did not provoke him.
2) Countries that violates war ban must pay fine to WASC and compensation to victim countries to be computed by WASC.
3) Countries that supports other countries that violate the war ban must also pay fine to WASC and compensation to victims countries.
4) There must be embargo and sanctions to countries making wars approved by WASC or made by other countries.

Please support!!!

The legislative proposal may now be debate within three (3) days.

The proposal may now be voted within two (2) days.

With the outcome of 2-0-4 (Y-A-N), the proposal is dismissed.

Sponsored content

(Dismissed) Worldwide Ban on Aggression and Wars Act